- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 105897 OF 2015 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KELLA VENKATESHWARAMMA W/O. APPALACHARI, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/BY HER GPA HOLDER APPALACHARI S/O. VEERACHARI AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. SHRI. H. M. GURUPADSWAMY S/O. RUDRASWAMY, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SABEEL AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TULAJAPPA S/O. TUKARAM LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. SANGAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER(PDO), SANGAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, SANGAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.AMAREDGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R2 & R3; SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL IN NO. PÀA/C¦Ã®Ä/ PÀA/C¦Ã®Ä/ PÀA/C¦Ã®Ä/ PÀA/C¦Ã®Ä/27/2012-13 PÀ.£ÀA. PÀ.£ÀA. PÀ.£ÀA. PÀ.£ÀA.7514/2894 DATED 07.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL IN NO.¸ÀA.PÀA/¨sÀÆ«Ä ¸ÀA.PÀA/¨sÀÆ«Ä ¸ÀA.PÀA/¨sÀÆ«Ä ¸ÀA.PÀA/¨sÀÆ«Ä /14/2011- 12 DATED 07.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONFIRM SALE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO.1 AND PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF SUIT LAND BEARING SY.NO.24/3 MEASURING 2 ACRES 1.26 GUNTAS AT SANGAPUR VILLAGE, AS LEGAL AND VALID. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2015, passed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure- A, confirming the order dated 07.08.2012, passed by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure-B. 2. Heard Sri. Sabeelahamed, learned counsel representing Sri.A.S.Patil for the petitioners, Sri.M.Amaregouda, learned counsel for caveator respondent No.1, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri.Vijayakumar Balagerimath, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18/7/1977, an order granting 2 acres 26 guntas of land in Survey No.24 of Sangapur village was passed in favour of respondent No.1 for the purpose of cultivating the said land. Accordingly, his name - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 was entered in the revenue records. Respondent No.1 sold 1 acre 10 guntas of land in favour of the petitioners on 26/6/1996, and the remaining 1 acre 16 guntas of land under the Sale Deed dated 3.5.2002. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short PTCL Act) on 19/10/2010 seeking resumption of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. 4. The Assistant Commissioner considering the application filed by respondent No.1, passed an order for resumption of the land in his favour. When the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, he rejected the claim of the petitioners and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, it is a general grant made in favour of respondent No.1 and therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 6. The order of grant produced as per Annexure E, is based on the recommendation of the Land Grant Committee, invoking the power under Rule 8(4) of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 by which the land in question was granted in favour of respondent No.1. Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act defines the word "granted land", which would mean any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and includes land allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time in being in force relating to agrarian reforms etc. 7. It is not disputed that Respondent No.1 belongs to ‘Lamani community’, which is a scheduled caste. Since, the land in question was granted to him under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, it definitely falls within the definition of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the grant was made under the general rules, and that, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable cannot be accepted, and is accordingly rejected. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 8. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there has been inordinate delay of more than 14 years and 8 years respectively, in filing the applications for resumption of the land by respondent No.1. Thus, the delay defeats right of the respondent No.1 to seek resumption of the land. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners places relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s. State Of Karnataka And Another 1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, observed that Section 4 of the PTCL Act does not prescribe any specific period within which such applications can be made or for initiation of suo moto action. However, placing reliance on its earlier decisions in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav Thr. LRs. & Ors.,2 and Sri. Ningappa v/s The Deputy Commissioner3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the actions, whether on the 1 [2020] 14 SCC 232 2 (2018) 12 SCC 527 3 (2020) 14 SCC 236 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 application of the parties or suo moto must be taken within a reasonable time. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka 4 wherein the Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance on Nekkanti Ramalakshmi (supra) and also on the decision in Gangamma V/s. Deputy Commissioner 5 held that the limitation is a period prescribed under law to take any action, whereas the concept of delay and laches has a different connotation to operate. It referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India V/s. N. Murugesan 6 where it is held that the term ‘laches’ is derived from French language meaning ‘remissness’ and ‘slackness’. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim. Thus, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the delay of 12 years in seeking resumption of the land 4 WA No. 1975 of 2023, disposed of on 27.02.2025 5 WA No.100101 of 2024, disposed of on 29.07.2024 6 (2020) 2 SCC 25 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 cannot be permitted as it is hit by the principles of delay and laches. It is observed that, it is highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void. 11. It is also important to note that the Division Bench in M. Manjula and others v/s. Deputy Commissioner and others 7 referring to Nekkanti Ramalakshmi (supra), Smt.Gouramma (supra), Murugesan (supra) considered the amended Section 5 of the PTCL Act and held that laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing the time to pass by commencing the action in law, while ‘limitation’ binds the litigant in terms of initiating a illegal action or filing any proceedings. Therefore, the Court held that the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years as the principles of laches would come into play. 7 (2024 Livelaw (Kar) 526) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 12. Thus, from all these decisions, it could be concluded that even after the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as this Court have consistently held that, even in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for resumption, or for suo moto action for the same, the delay and laches on the part of the original grantee or by the authority concerned is to be taken into consideration. If there is unreasonable delay, the original grantee is not entitled for any relief. 13. If these decisions are made applicable to the facts in the present case, the original grantee i.e. respondent No.1 sold one bit of land in favour of the petitioner on 26/06/1996 and the other portion on 3/05/2002. The application for resumption was filed on 19/10/2010, that is, after lapse of 14 and 8 years respectively. Therefore, the doctrine of delay and laches will definitely be applicable against respondent No. 1 while seeking resumption of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5564 WP No. 105897 of 2015 land, which he had sold under the registered sale deeds long back. Therefore, it is unreasonable, at this juncture, to order resumption of the land in favour of respondent No.1. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 07.05.2015, passed by the Deputy Commissioner respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-A is set aside. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending IA No.2/2022 stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB/CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12